Gamey Game Play

[poesel]

But as an option? I think it could work out pretty well. The unfortunate thing is it would be a major effort to develop and get right, yet we figure only a minority of players would opt into it. So it's not likely to happen simply because there's other things we can do with the same time that would make more people happier more of the time.

You could outsource this to the community. If the OOB screen had an im-/export button and you use a name schema like for the maps then users could make the setups themselves. I doubt it would take long before packs of these would show up in the repository.

Of course I don't know how much work that would be for you. But the im-/export thing would come in handy for other things, too.

[cjslax6]

Air OP? Some big hill or church steeple that,s just off map? Fully predicted fire from calibrated guns on theatre survey? Etc.

That information makes sense, but shouldn't there be a TRP associated with it? I know that not many people agree, but one change could be making it so that setup artillery calls are no different than traditional ones. The timing can still be immediate, but if you want to call artillery on a certain location you need to have spent points on a TRP or have a line of sight.

For me, the issue is that there is no penalty for calling artillery anywhere on the map in the setup. I don't see why either side should be able to call artillery in any location unless they purchase a TRP. Thus each side would be limited to what they can see or they can spend a TRP.

Would we expect Air Recon to have been accurate enough to call in a location from the air when its own forces were that close? No spotting rounds or anything?

[cjslax6]

Also, this is nothing against my current opponents as I've seen it before. It's just a gripe about the game I've had for awhile.

[akd]

I agree. The addition of a TRP system makes the need for unrestricted setup phase artillery to depict the above circumstances unnecessary. For QBs, players can "invest" in additional observation assets (air OPs, etc.) via purchase of TRPs. For scenarios, designers can provide or limit access to TRPs depending on the circumstance of the battle, where there may or may not be any means of delivering accurate fire without on-map observation.

IMO, setup phase artillery without a TRP should be treated as uncorrected predicted fire, with the same accuracy error as "emergency" type missions. Large volumes of fire delivered to broad "area" missions can still be effective, but it eliminates the ability to precisely take out the third house on the left side of the street in the town in the next valley over in a situation where there would be no observation of the area.

[JonS]

I know that not many people agree

True, although none of those people will complain about any house rules you chose to use

[Childress]

Hear! Hear!

Considering myself rather on the grog side i always (even in CMx1) considered QBs to be inherently gamey - they pitch artificially selected (and limited) forces against each other...

But they're popular. Esp with the clubs.

The pricing/picking format in CM1 and CM2 is a victim of the efficient market syndrome. BF cannot readjust the prices as fast as thousands of players can process *real* value through cost/benefit analysis. They've come to realize it's a Sisyphean (thanks Google!) task.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yeah, but they are making the perfect the enemy of the good. You can buy 320 rounds of 114mm US rockets for fewer points (72) than 2 60mm mortar teams (82 points, 64 rounds). Items that are obviously out-of-whack by huge margins should be corrected.

If something is worth doing it's worth doing well. Well doesn't have to be perfect.

[Childress]

That doesn't sound right, VAB. They'll fix that one. But it can never be, we can agree, more than a rough and ready system.

I participated in dozen's of 'em PBEM in CM1. (I s*ck at CM2). Have to admit it was kind of fun and rewarding putting on the green eye shade and scoping out the unit values better than my opp. I recall that some fourumites posted tables.

[Doug Williams]

Pre-made QB force selections would be a feature that I would not see myself using very often. If I want to pick my forces, I play QBs. If I want my forces selected for me, I play Scenarios. Sometimes, just for the hell of it, I'll play a PBEM QB with computer picks forces for both sides. I personally would not want to see BFC spend man-hours implementing this feature.

[womble]

That doesn't sound right, VAB. They'll fix that one.

It's been in since launch and Steve has directly stated that they will not adjust any points values, when specifically asked for this one single change. Which is, furthermore, the only change I've got any recollection of being asked for with any persistence at all.

It's egregious and it's not going to be addressed, at least until the whole system gets a reboot. We just have to live with that, and part of the coping strategy is to play without them.

[Vinnart]

Pre-made QB force selections would be a feature that I would not see myself using very often. If I want to pick my forces, I play QBs. If I want my forces selected for me, I play Scenarios. Sometimes, just for the hell of it, I'll play a PBEM QB with computer picks forces for both sides. I personally would not want to see BFC spend man-hours implementing this feature.

I never use the suggestd auto picks for QB, but a player's pre-made QB force selection is something RT multiplayer's would use to speed up getting the game started. A player would make for example a medium 4000 point force and save it to file, then simply upload it for that size battle rather than having to pick it each time. The force would populate then the player modify it, save it, or just hit start to begin the game.

[Vinnart]

Yeah, but they are making the perfect the enemy of the good. You can buy 320 rounds of 114mm US rockets for fewer points (72) than 2 60mm mortar teams (82 points, 64 rounds). Items that are obviously out-of-whack by huge margins should be corrected.

If something is worth doing it's worth doing well. Well doesn't have to be perfect.

I agree some refining in that particular cost difference sounds more reasonable.

[womble]

I never use the suggestd auto picks for QB, but a player's pre-made QB force selection is something RT multiplayer's would use to speed up getting the game started. A player would make for example a medium 4000 point force and save it to file, then simply upload it for that size battle rather than having to pick it each time. The force would populate then the player modify it, save it, or just hit start to begin the game.

Yeah, saveable OoBs would be great for all sorts of things, and the community would definitely produce them. They're so much easier to do than a full scenario, or even just a map, or a QB-to-scenario mashup.

Though you could spend a lot of time trawling through them looking for good ones...

[sburke]

Yeah, saveable OoBs would be great for all sorts of things, and the community would definitely produce them. They're so much easier to do than a full scenario, or even just a map, or a QB-to-scenario mashup.

Though you could spend a lot of time trawling through them looking for good ones...

You can do pre made OoBs, in fact there are already a couple on the repository. I don't know if you can import them into a Qb setup, but you could take a qb map and import them into it with a small amount of effort.

[womble]

You can do pre made OoBs, in fact there are already a couple on the repository. I don't know if you can import them into a Qb setup, but you could take a qb map and import them into it with a small amount of effort.

Yes, you can import into a scenario, but it's not supported by the QB interface, and you have to be able to trust your opponent's self-control to not 'peek' while setting the thing up. AIUI, there's no automatic controls either, so you have to trust the opponent to not 'adjust' their forces in Editor while setting the thing up. Fine for playing with people you already know and trust, but real difficult to spot if it's not completely ham-fistedly done, with a new opponent.

While we're talking about making force selection eaiser, it'd be cool to be able (in situations where map preview is permitted) to select troops while viewing the game field, and, maybe with some newfangled tech stuff, do something like drag and drop them onto the board...

[Doug Williams]

But a player's pre-made QB force selection is something RT multiplayer's would use to speed up getting the game started.

Ah, I sometimes forget people even play RT, since I never do.

[Childress]

It's been in since launch and Steve has directly stated that they will not adjust any points values, when specifically asked for this one single change. Which is, furthermore, the only change I've got any recollection of being asked for with any persistence at all.

How much effort does it require to modify one single variable? Really?

My favorite way to play QBs in CM1 was via auto-pick. But that mechanism is just too wonky in CM2. God knows what you'll end up with- some kind of zoological assortment of units.

[poesel]

While we're talking about making force selection eaiser, it'd be cool to be able (in situations where map preview is permitted) to select troops while viewing the game field, and, maybe with some newfangled tech stuff, do something like drag and drop them onto the board...

It would be a start if the troops you have already bought would show up on the map preview. So you can see what you have bought - a great help if you are new to the game and don't know stuff yet.

[womble]

How much effort does it require to modify one single variable? Really?

Almost none, I'm sure. Certainly less than fixing something like the deploy bug.

But it's not a matter of effort. As has been said, it's just not a door that Steve is going to open.

[iMolestCats]

If only we could get in to the code..... (sigh)

[sfhand]

Weighing in a bit late on this one... the first part of this thread highlights the necessity of discussing the parameters of h2h games with a perspective opponent if one wishes a mutually satisfying outcome. Not to deride anyone's preferred playing style, and completely leaving out any insights into the motivation of others, there is just no way I would be happy playing an opponent who thinks dropping arty on an opponent's setup zone in any engagement other than, as has been mentioned, an attack or assault/defend situation wherein the attacker uses pre-planned strikes (personally, I think pre-planned strikes are oob for all situations except that one).

My main wish for a QB selection feature is the ability to mix forces (like one can do in the editor to create scenarios). Obviously, it would fit in well with the MG module.

edit: a side note, I think dropping arty in a setup zone is acceptable if I have been able to move a spotter into a position to have eyes on the setup zone and can call in a strike the conventional way. I have been on the receiving end of this and had no problem with it. (in that case the strike was off target and landed deeper in my setup zone than intended and caused a lot of havoc within my own mortar deployment; further proof of the fickleness of the Gods of War)

[womble]

My main wish for a QB selection feature is the ability to mix forces (like one can do in the editor to create scenarios). Obviously, it would fit in well with the MG module.

Gods, yes. Italian infantry forces aren't too bad, but they need German armour support to give the Shermans something to think about.

edit: a side note, I think dropping arty in a setup zone is acceptable if I have been able to move a spotter into a position to have eyes on the setup zone and can call in a strike the conventional way.

That is a very good point.

[Vinnart]

My main wish for a QB selection feature is the ability to mix forces (like one can do in the editor to create scenarios). Obviously, it would fit in well with the MG module.

I would like to see that make a comeback too from CMx1. One could make some interesting forces mixes this way. My favorite was mixing British and USA units.

I realy like the freedom to make mix force of ones choosing that is availabe now. I am not speaking of mixing nationalities as above, but mixing armor/inf and whatever. I hope that never goes away, but I think it would be great to bring back the combined force limits option also from Cmx1. This was the option that allowed so many points being spent per type to make a combined force. This was the option I used most for QB games, and it always made for making a balanced force not alowing someone to buy all artillery, MG's or whatever. Like I said I like the freedom of making my force as I see fit, but think the return of combined forces with fixed spending per type ala Cmx1 would be popular, and a help to those who have a hard time putting a balanced force together.